When the idea of arming our border guards was first pushed into mainstream discussion, I was against the idea for one simple reason. It’s an unjustifiable expense. Arming our border guards will require that they undergo a whole new level of training to be able to properly handle the firearm as well as to be able to identify when it’s appropriate to unholster and possibly use it. In addition to this expense, is the added expense of setting up some form of oversight, similar to what’s in place for our existing law enforcement, to look into any incidents where a border guard must resort to using his firearm.
For more than a hundred years our border with the United States has functioned with little or no problems. I can’t recall of a single incident where a border guard has lost his life and the rate of assault committed against them is negligible. And before anyone brings it up, the recent incident where several guards left their post because of an armed and dangerous criminal being chased toward the border is not really related to border security. Criminals always flee toward the border and the law enforcement of the nation they’re fleeing from is more than capable of handling their own internal matters; as was the case because the incident was resolved even before it hit the US/Canada border.
So I saw very little justification for arming our border guards. Now however, I’ve changed my position soley on the basis that the border guards themselves are asking that they be armed. I worked as a carpenter for many years and one thing that always made my tasks easier was recognition of the fact that you can’t do a proper job if you don’t have the proper tools. I mean, sure you could pound nails in with a rock, but a hammer is simply a far superior tool for the job. And it’s for this reason that I now support the arming of our border guards. They feel that they need them to do a proper job of guarding our borders.
And this is what distinguishes the left from the right when it comes to issues like this. The left recognizes that they don’t know everything and will defer to those who actually do. In the above case, it would be ludicrous of me to insist that I’m more knowledgible than the border guards when it comes to the tools required to do the job. The right however, doesn’t believe this to be true. They believe they know what is required to get the job done better than those who are actually doing the job.
Case in point. The head of Canada’s police chiefs, Jack Ewatski has once again called for the Conservatives to not scrap the federal gun registry. He asserts that it is frequently used by law enforcement officials across the country and has now become one more tool they can use to do a proper job. And true to form, the conservative pundits are claiming they possess superior knowledge when it comes to knowing whether a particular tool of the trade is of any value to our law enforcement officials.
The gun registry has become a political whipping point used by the right to generate hostility toward the Liberals. But the fact is, that it is a tool that law enforcement officials have found to be of value and for the conservatives to continue dismissing this simply for the sake of political gamesmanship shows that they don’t care if our police have the proper tools to do a proper job. When it comes to the gun registry only one group’s opinion now matters; our law enforcement officials who use it every day and PM Harper cannot afford to ignore their opinion on its value. What he can do however, is ignore the opinions of those with no real knowledge pertaining to the value of the gun registry and nothing more than a political agenda to peddle.
“The left recognizes that they don’t know everything and will defer to those who actually do. In the above case, it would be ludicrous of me to insist that I’m more knowledgible than the border guards when it comes to the tools required to do the job. The right however, doesn’t believe this to be true. They believe that know what is required to get the job done better than those who are doing the job.”
Flip flopper. No seriously, I agree here with you Robert. Many on the right seem to have their beliefs and values set in stone regardless of the facts that surface to counter those beliefs. But the right truly believe that they know the one right way to live and any acknowledgement that they don’t know something is seen as a sign of weakness to them, hence why they know everything.
Re: arming border guards - it really burns us right-thinkers when the government caves in to the unions.
Many on the Right think their beliefs become reality if they just work hard enough at it. In some sense, it’s a very bold, robust way of approaching life (which is why extreme Conservatism appeals to insecure, talentless males), but it leads to really bad fuck-ups (like economic depressions, genocides and wars for oil).
When those on the Right have their beliefs challenged and discredited, they usually aren’t grateful that they’ve enlightened; they just get angry and sulk.
God, I hate Rightwingers…. Anway, what’s this topic about?..
Nice to see you agree with Conservatives!
Coservative Party Of Canada Federal Election Platform 2006
Page 26. Under the heading “Securing our borders”, sixth point:
“Provide our border officers with sidearms and the training required for their use, and ensure, for the
safety of these officers, that there are no “work alone” posts.”
Over at http://www.ndp.ca, I do not see a single mention of any border initiative ( except ports). Is this what you meant when you wrote “And this is what distinguishes the left from the right when it comes to issues like this.”?
The fact is the border agents union have been petitioning CBSA for years to cary side arms, and every time the gvt’t refused.
http://www.ndp.ca/page/3013
“Arm officers at border locations. “The federal government should arm border officers if it is not prepared to station and maintain an RCMP presence at all crossings”, as recommended by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.”
Took less than a minute to find that.
CEUDA seems to want every border guard to have a sidearm. RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli told a Senate committee last year that “arming people is not the optimum answer to many of our problems.” (source Globe and Mail). Expert opinions always differ.
I’d support an RCMP presence but I am not comfortable turning our border guards into police officers. In some respects my reaction is emotional. Returning to Canada and speaking with our unarmed customs officers stands in stark contrast to the armed, and often condescendingly suspicious, agents I have encountered in some other nations. Strap on the guns and Canada will seem just a little less Canadian to me.
I’d even support disarming traffic cops and leaving the shootouts and arrests to a special class of police officers.
spek,
My appologies. I only read as far as the Peace and Security point ( http://www.ndp.ca/page/3018 ).
In my defense, though, the Peace and Security point references Canadian ports. You would think that a point that makes reference to port secruity would also make reference to border security, rather than seperate the two
And just to nit pick, don’t you think border security would be under ‘Peace and Security’, not ‘Ending Violence’. I’m just saying…
So, you see, he was technically right, in some convoluted way, and was therefore justified in running over here to breathlessly point out a hypocrisy or inconsistency, which is all Conservatives ever think is necessary when engaging others in dialogue.
Seriously, if you Conservatives asked yourselves a few questions every time you made one of your bold, incontrovertible statements (..questions like, Am I really sure about this?, like normal people do), and less interested in scoring rhetorical victories, we’d all be better off.
No he was not ‘technically right’. He was factually wrong.
Incontrovertible statement???
Here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incontrovertible
The ‘incontrovertible’ statement is the Conservative party **supports** arming border guards, which is what the union is asking for. I could repost the link for you if you like.
Perhaps Robert could have also asked himself ‘am I really sure about this? like normal people do’, or maybe done a litle research first.
The “he” I wrote referred to you, Senstan. The “incontrovertible” statement was you implying that the NDP did not mention arming border personnel. The point I was making is that Conservatives rush over here to score rhetorical points, and not acutally to discuss things, and it’s a waste of time. To whit:
The ‘incontrovertible’ statement is the Conservative party **supports** arming border guards, which is what the union is asking for. I could repost the link for you if you like.
Where in the OP did Robert say the Conservative party doesn’t support this? Are you actually reading the posts here?
I’m really tired of this. I was faced this morning with a statement (which, at best, cannot be substantiated at all, but more likely a lie…but I’m not allowed to write that), and it’s going to take me all day in to pull together the documentation to refute it.
You don’t need to post any links about the CPC platform. If I make any statements about it, I’ll read it…carefully…and I know where to find it.
Free day! What did I miss?
I admited my mistake. I was not thorough enough in reading the NDP platform.
“And this is what distinguishes the left from the right when it comes to issues like this. The left recognizes that they don’t know everything and will defer to those who actually do. In the above case, it would be ludicrous of me to insist that I’m more knowledgible than the border guards when it comes to the tools required to do the job. The right however, doesn’t believe this to be true. They believe they know what is required to get the job done better than those who are actually doing the job.”
If the right ‘did not believe this to be true’, as Robert states, they would not be in support of arming border guards.
By all means, lets discuss things. But we can not have an honest discussion without factual information, one way or the other (h/t spek).
Free day! What did I miss?
Nothing. It’s been a bit dull. You’ve been indulging in RTIHB”s fascination with gay sex, I see. I don’t know how you or Peter can stand the discussion over there. Half of RTIHB’s OP was stuff he pulled right out of his ass.
If the right ‘did not believe this to be true’, as Robert states, they would not be in support of arming border guards.
This might just be a happy coincidence, when the Right believes it knows something and the people who are actually doing the job know it as well, and they just happen to agree. On the issue of the Gun Registry (which is the point of the OP) this does not seem to be the case.
I’ve long said conservatives tend to approach issues with a certainty that their own knowledge and their own experience don’t really justifiy. They tend to just “believe” something, and then expect reality to simply play along. They are too often mistaken.
Well it was fun until Pete In Dumfuckistan and Anonalogue showed up. And I know he just makes crap up but it pisses me off when he gets bigoted like that.
*pout*
Anyone catch the State of the Union yesterday?
It’s getting a little tired. He is literally stating that the U.S. will never surrender to evil. It’s sounding like a melodramatic video game now.
I am moving back to Canada in four months. Getting antsy.
Well it was fun until Pete In Dumfuckistan and Anonalogue showed up. And I know he just makes crap up but it pisses me off when he gets bigoted like that.
Especially Nonny. He could help help RTIHB with all the factual inconsistencies, but he chooses to be insane.
Anyone catch the State of the Union yesterday?
Nope. Two reasons:
- I literally cannot stand Bush’s voice…sounds like a ruptured goose deflating. And with all his smirks and twitches and mispronunciations (he’s still saying ‘nukular’ right?), it’s like having my ear-drums sand-papered.
- It’s a load of crap. I’ll read the different commentary on it, but these state of the union things are a waste of times, especially when coming from a liar like Bush.
The thing I love most about the State of the Unions is the numerous standing ovations. Seriously, all he has to is say America or evil and people jump to their feet.
I think the great reason to watch them is to see a man totally out of touch with reality. The war on terror in its present form is not winnable, especially with the U.S. in the Middle East killing innocent Iraqi’s, Afghani’s and Pakistani’s, clearly adding to the grips they have against the west.
I will give him props however for stating that America is addicted to oil, although his pledge to reduce Middle East dependency by 75% is a bit nieve given the fact that alternative sources of fuel are nowhere near ready to take the place of oil. Has he never heard of the words efficency or conservation?
As for the Canuckistan stuff, some of those guys are far out loons man. At least you can engage Richard, but those others are whacko’s. If I lived next to them, I would fear for my safety.
I think this reduction in dependency on oil from the ME may have something to do with annexing Alberta. I could be wrong, though.
Actually is was a pretty good move on his part, with the ME oil. Main oil importers into the U.S. are Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. ME only accounts for about 20% of U.S. oil imports. So to reduce that by 75%, you only have to reduce your oil consumption by 15% in aggregate, or just find a new place to import that oil from, like Alberta.
U.S. imports about 300 million barrels of oil a month (http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/trad1105.pdf - Exhibit 17, page 24)
Trying to shift about 15% of this away from ME equals about 45 million barrels per month, something that Alberta will easily be able to provide by 2025.
Excellent thing to say for PR reasons.
Yes but we all know that Bush says one thing and then does the opposite. I wouldn’t be counting on those progressions anytime soon.
And how!
Especially Pete in Penetang. With Anonalogue, I think he’s just drunk when he gets like that. Which is why I support raising the drinking age to 20.
Whelmed, it may be good PR, but that’s probably all it is. In any case, most sensible people tune out to PR. Public Relations used to mean engaging your public in dialogue; listening to what they have to say and explaining yourself clearly. Nowadays, it’s just synonymous with advertising and marketing and it’s completely uni-directional.
Pete in Dumbfuckistan is a grade A moron. Take this gem:
“It has been conclusively proved that we have NO IDEA what the infection levels are in Africa … since the determination of logging infected people doesn’t include the same values we consider here …. have a high fever - oh, AIDS, of course … can’t be the flue or some other disease. When only the homosexual activists parade those numbers, it should be a clue that some dissembling is going on?”
A simple google search came up with some relevant stats. Avert.org estimates that 25.8 MILLION people are infected. I guess those stats are not true because Pete in Dumbfuckistan said so. I suppose that Avert.org is a homosexual activist site… ARGH
What a loser.
Yes, but the expression “conclusively proved” is like a magic spell…just put it in front of everything you write and say and…hey presto, you’re correct and no further argument or proof is necessary. It’s such powerful mo-jo that other, sensible people, who secretely know better and who are in a position to provide a fact-based rebuttal, are silenced by it.
Ok I get it. I’ll go fight in the trenches some more.
May the force be with you, Paladiea!…;) I’d join you, but I’d get banned soon enough.
I think we scared them. They’ll be back when they know we’re gone.
“Actually is was a pretty good move on his part, with the ME oil. Main oil importers into the U.S. are Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. ME only accounts for about 20% of U.S. oil imports. So to reduce that by 75%, you only have to reduce your oil consumption by 15% in aggregate, or just find a new place to import that oil from, like Alberta.”
So they don’t actually want to reduce their oil usage, just where they get it from. Great. I just don’t see given what we know about peak oil, why we don’t start a serious campaign of conservation and efficency.
It makes you wonder though - is this a precursor for the U.S. to get the hell out of the ME? They know they can’t win the war on terror, or the war in Iraq, so maybe by doing this they will just cut their losses and get the heck out of dodge and look to Alberta to feed their addiction. But what happens when Alberta peaks and begins to run out….
I don’t think those people think that far ahead. Look at Dick “Crash-Cart” Cheney. He knows he’ll be going any minute now. I remember looking at all the oil company CEO’s who appeared before the (Senate?) on the issue of price-gouging just recently. They all looked like they’d been mummified and re-animated for the meeting.
These people just do not care.
Hey Paladiea, where are these trenches of which you speak? Can you link me to that forum?
LOL They’re at RTIHB’s blog. I won’t be commenting there any time soon after this!